Re: HHH(DD) --- COMPUTE ACTUAL MAPPING FROM INPUT TO OUTPUT

Op 18.apr.2025 om 18:19 schreef olcott:

On 4/18/2025 8:27 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 23:24:22 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

On 16/04/2025 22:01, Mr Flibble wrote:

I, aka Mr Flibble, have uniquely identified this category error and
have thus solved the halting problem

>
No, Mr Flibble, you have solved the Mr Flibble Problem. Well done! You
may award yourself whatever cash prize you can find in your piggy bank.
Well done!
>
And now you'd hurry back to using all those naughty words while your
mummy's still out at the shops.

>
Partial deciders are a thing,

 Yes they are and termination analyzers only need
be correct on at least one input.
 

 dear, and in the case of a simulating halt
decider with finite resources repeated state can be recognised for a
useful subset of problems including the ability to recognise pathological
input (halting problem category error manifestation). A simulating halt

 Yes.

decider with the mythical infinite resources that the halt decider that
your proofs are predicated on also possesses is an unpartial decider also
with the ability to recognise pathological input (halting problem category
error manifestation).
>
/Flibble

 typedef void (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
} SIMULATED DD
  It is correct for HHH to reject its input DD as
non-terminating on the basis that DD SIMULATED BY
HHH and HHH emulating itself emulating DD prove a
repeating pattern preventing the
 // dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
// dishonest people tried to change this subject for three years
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
SIMULATED DD
  From ever reaching its own final halt state.
The above refutes the conventional Halting Problem proof.
The simulating halt decider / termination analyzer is my idea.
 

But you fail to accept that there is nothing to prevent. HHH is in error to abort a *finite* repeating pattern, but exactly that error makes it halting, which the programmer does not understand and therefore he thinks it is justified to report a non-halting behaviour, where HHH in fact only reports a 'not completely simulated' result.